Just in case folks want to continue the discussion, I've provided a starting point away from the Marriage thread on my forum for folks to continue to talk about heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, relationships, marriage, and the like.

Ian wrote-
Redbeard, don't worry too much about me. I've had death threats, hate mail, slander campaigns, and the occasional physical assault because of who I am, and this really isn't getting me bent out of shape. I just was stating I found some of your comments inappropriate.

That kind of behaviour is unfortunate. I am sorry that you have gone through those things. But it does come from both sides of the issue. The gay/lesbian community can be just as hate-filled/militant as those opposed to that way of life. I, like you my friend, know this from first hand experiance.

Ian wrote-
You have stated that homosexual parents are bad for kids / society
You have stated we probably have genetic defects although that doesn't excuse our behavior
You have put us in the company of people who burn kids with cigarettes and others who harm society.

Yes, I believe the homosexual culture is bad for society. I believe the promiscuous/ immoral heterosexual aspects of our culture is just as bad!

I said that I have left the posibility open for genetic defects, but I believe that most cases stem from developmental disability. If this is not your situation, I have no reason to disbelieve you. If you have any thoughts on what causes homosexuality, I am willing to listen.

No, I don't believe that homosexuals are on the same level as child abusers. Sorry you got that impression

You've not supported these comments with any objective evidence, just as the data backing up your psychological theory is your limited personal observation. I've mostly limited myself to countering your attacks and since I've made no broad criticisms of your slice of society, their ability to raise children, or proposed limiting their civil rights etc, I'm not sure what facts you'd like me to provide. Let me know, I'll come up with something. I said little about the book you promoted, as well--and let citations make most of my case.

Well, I don't know what you want from me either. I get the feeling that you think "my slice of society", as you put it, are a bunch of ignorant, violent villians who are out to get you. Could I honestly say ANYTHING on the subject to change your mind? You have your reasons, I have mine.

Ian wrote-
Here's my major point: you want to strip the rights of a segment of society away? You better come prepared with facts. I haven't seen any, yet. Awaiting response.

Actually, I don't believe any "special interest groups" should have any special rights in the first place. Do "chochlate lovers" get any special rights? Do animal lovers? How about skateboarders? Rock-n-Rollers? Members of the N.R.A? Isn't America the land of equality?

For instance, if you have the right to "marry" another man, then I have the right to not recognize that union. And I don't believe government should be in the bussiness of defining, dictating, or redefining such matters. The smaller government is, the better off we will all be.

Jorvik wrote-
Seems to me that there are two discussions going on here.one is about "Marriage" and the other is about Marriage in the Christian tradition. Christians don't allow Homo sexual marriages, but then they wouldn't recognise a Buddhist marriage or an Islamic one either

It is my understanding that marriage from the begining of time has been defined as the union between a man and a women. This goes for any man and women despite culture, race, religion, etc.

Love here means caring for and doing good toward our fellow man. I love my siberian huskey, but I have no desire to put my p***s in his r****m. The Scriptures are crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin

Jorvik wrote-
.....the Bible has been heavily edited, the oldest thing in the new testement is the letters of Paul, the oldest Gospel is that of Mark.the new testement has been re-shuffled many times to promote the viewpoint of different factions within Christianity.

This is a popular but completely unfounded and unhistorical opinion. Actually, manuscript evidence that proves that the Bible is virtualy unchanged since it was written is abundant. Fragments of the Hebrew Old Testament number in the tens of thousands, the best known and some of the most valuble from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the third century B.C. More than five thousand ancient copies of New Testament manuscripts have been found. Most of these are altogether or largely intact. One manuscript of the gospel of John dates back to about 125 A.D. This was only 30 years after his death.

When we compare the ancient manuscripts to each other and with the Bible we have now, there are about 4oo varient readings, or differences. The great majority are gramatical errors, repeated words, and a few footnotes that were added in by those making the copies. NONE of these discrepencies have any real significance and none affect New Testament doctrine.

I can assure you, that if you go to the book store and buy a copy of the New American Standard Bible, you will have in your hands a book that is 99.99 percent exactly as it was in the days that it was written.

All the historical evidence points to the fact that the Bible we have now is authentic. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is another matter.

I believe the Bible because of theHistorical factsArcheological factsFulfilled Prophecy (such as over 400 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled through the life, death, burial, and ressurection of Christ. Read Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 for detailed descriptions of the crucifixion that were written hundreds of years before they occured.)Because of the harmony of the 66 books of scripture, which contain no contradictions and are very harmonious.Because God has been faithful to me when I have been faithful to Him.

Jorvik wrote-
however my father in heaven has given me the ability to see that ...nobody said Religion was easy, God created math and science and that isn't easy..sure it's easy to follow a dogma and shout phrases......and we would be unhappy if Islamics did it.but hey they believe in one God , and so do I ...we just have different names for him as do the Jews....Buddhists just think about the oneness with God.....

These religions are all different, they have conflicting teachings and different foundations. They cannot all be true. My brothers, we must examine the evidence and make our choice.

Jorvik wrote-
at the end of the day the world is a cold and lonely place to live without someone to love, if it happens to be of the same sex, so what............I read this in a Sociology Book.a kid brought up by a syphalitic whore mother and a drunk father...who was he? Beethoven
I'm sure that folks who love each other are better role models than folks who don't, many homosexuals struggle with their sexuality .....what about folks brought up with homosexual parents ( it has happened Animatronics from " the sissor sisters".great band by the way.love them )
wouldn't they struggle? also??
by that token.suppose that you brought up by Godless parents...why should you accept Christianity???.Islamics don't ( I don't mean Godless, I mean that they call their "one God" a different name form our "one God" ..but there is only one God ..so go figure....I think that maybe the "one God " is the God of homosexuals as well

God is the God of us all, and He is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance. Believe me when I tell you that I am probably a bigger sinner than anyone else in this forum. But I find comfort and warmth in the knowledge that Christ died for me, and that through His sacrifice I have found peace with God.

es - we all have temptations to overcome. Of late one of my worst temptations has been over-indulgence in chocolate as it appears in various forms (mocha, dark, milk, syrup, chips, fudge, etc.) Did I mention mocha?

However one place I get hung up on is the idea that while everyone is going to commit what many people call "sins" some people get legal protections and some people don't.

In particular the some 1300 legal protections (as established by case law) that come with civil marriage.

I would hope that churches that do not wish to recognize homosexual behavior continue to have the right to exlude homosexuals from getting married in their churches. That's freedom of religion. However - for our country to deny legal protections to some and give them to others at a civil level really bothers me.

A heterosexual adulterer (male or female) can get married and divorced multiple times and still carry rights to property, children, estates, trusts, insurance benefits, social security, etc.

A homosexual adulterer gets rights to....nothing.

Why the disparity?

Why not have civil marriage open to two consenting adults and let religious groups consecrate religious marriages for only those people who wish to live their lives within the confines of the dogma of that religion?

When this was on my forum, I felt like I couldn't comment. Now that someone else can be the moderator, I'll speak my mind.

Thanks, John!

Your specific position makes a lot of sense to me, Dana.

On the one hand, various Churches need to follow their dogma, and don't need outside groups telling them what they can and cannot believe. I think the wave of Political Correctness has gone way, way too far. It's no surprise to me that a Republican of ANY name (Fred, John, Fido) swept into office in spite of the Middle East bungling. People have had enough of Hollywood telling them how they should live, what they should say, and what they should think. And religion isn't a democracy, nor is it supposed to be a popularity contest.

Let various churches preach what they want to preach, and sanctify what they want to sanctify. There obviously will be limits. Polygamy isn't something The Mormons can practice in this country. But to the extent that clashes can be avoided and individual freedoms can be honored, let people think and believe what they want.

On the other hand, our understanding of sexual identity has come a long way from the days of homosexuality as an official medical illness. Truth be told, there's a lot we still don't know about the subject. But classifying behavior as a "defect" is a pretty tricky thing. It's like obsessive compulsive behavior. There are times when that is good. I want my surgeon to be obsessive compulsive about process and sterile technique. It's only an official medical disorder when it interferes with one's ability to live a productive life. For many gay and lesbian people, the only thing preventing the latter are outside forces.

I still don't know what to think about teaching gay lifestyles in a public school sex education curriculum. Do we "advocate" such by doing this? Is sexual identity something on a spectrum that has both a nature and a nurture component? If so, does "advocacy" promote activity? (Ever heard of the expression "gay for the stay" in prison?) Is that good? Bad? Indifferent? I don't know.

Do we mess with the Institution of Marriage? I think not. This IMO messes with tradition, biology, etc. These issues are way too significant for many people.

Do we give gays and lesbians a civil means to create a family and gain the legal and financial rights that heterosexual couples get? Frankly I can't think of a good legal reason why we shouldn't. And there are far too many wonderful, talented, and productive, taxpaying people out there who don't need government telling THEM what they should or should not do, or treating them like second-class citizens. Moreover, it would make ME happy to make them happy in this way.

Do we still have limits on what we think is legal and illegal sexual activity? Absolutely.

Do we continue to do research on the subject of sexual identity so we can figure out what makes people tick? You bet.

That's what I believe, and I respect the rights of others to have their own beliefs on the subject.

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAYA year after marrying her long-time partner, Maureen Brodoff says the word "wife" still does not flow easily from her lips. But knowing that Ellen Wade is, indeed, her legal spouse has unexpectedly strengthened their 25-year bond.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge carry copies of their wedding licenseswith them everywhere they go in case they have to prove they'remarried in an emergency. By Elise Amendola, AP

"I've never wavered in my commitment ... and never felt anything less from Ellen," says Brodoff, 53. "And yet we look at each other and we just marvel at how much closer in some mysterious way this whole experience has made us. It's partly the ritual. It's the coming together of you and your relationship with your community."

Today is their anniversary — and exactly one year since the first same-sex couples were wed in Massachusetts, following a decision by the state's highest court that legalized gay marriages.

Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation where same-sex marriages are legal. In the past year, more than 6,100 same-sex couples have gotten married — one out of six marriage licenses issued in the state. Among the same-sex weddings, about two-thirds are female couples.

But the national debate over whether such marriages should be allowed is as fierce today as it was after the Massachusetts court ruling in November 2003. Supporters and opponents are battling at the ballot box, in state legislatures and in courtrooms across the country.

"It was the second shot heard 'round the world from Massachusetts," says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage. He calls state bans on same-sex marriage "a national referendum to firmly establish marriage as being between a man and a woman."

Mary Bonauto of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sees a different momentum. "Massachusetts helped people to crystallize in their minds that this country can't keep turning its back on gay and lesbian families," she says. "There's disagreement about how to change and how fast to change, but there's at least, clearly, some emerging consensus that that's the path we are on."

In the 15 months since the Massachusetts court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, polls consistently show a majority of Americans against it. Opposition reached a historic high of 68% in March in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. But the most recent poll, April 29-May 1, showed a significant drop of those against gay marriage, down to 56%. The poll showed support for gay marriage at 39%.

When asked if gay men and lesbians should have equal rights in job opportunities, 90% said yes, according to a Gallup Poll earlier this month. Polling also shows that people respond differently if asked about homosexuals vs. gays and lesbians. For example, when the Gallup Poll asked if "homosexuals" should be hired as high school teachers, 62% said they should. When the wording was changed to "gays and lesbians," 71% said yes.

Legislatures take action

Eighteen states have adopted state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriages. But a federal judge on Thursday struck down Nebraska's by saying it "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman." Voters in three states — Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee — will decide in 2006 whether to ban same-sex marriages. And legislatures in at least 13 other states are weighing similar amendments.

"We're going to continue to lose in many of these states," says Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But he says opponents of same-sex marriage are rushing to pass such measures because the public over time will become less resistant to the idea. "They understand their window of opportunity to slam this door in our face gets smaller and smaller every year that goes by. The sky didn't fall on Massachusetts."

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, says the issue won't fade. "While the country is deeply divided on a number of issues, same-sex marriage is not one of them," says Bauer, whose Arlington, Va.-based organization opposes same-sex marriage. "The public overwhelmingly rejects any redefinition of marriage. ... Typical Americans are looking for ways through the democratic process to prevent that from happening."

A checkerboard of court decisions has affirmed and denied gay marriages. Judges in California, New York state and Washington state recently ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates their state constitutions. But the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in April that 3,000 same-sex marriages performed last year were illegal.

Two states have opted to legalize civil unions. Connecticut passed a civil unions law in April that goes into effect in October. Civil unions give same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples without marriage. Vermont has permitted civil unions since 2000 following a state Supreme Court ruling.

Despite the lawsuits and amendments, the hub of the gay marriage debate remains Massachusetts.

"I think everybody was holding their breath. And then May 17 came and went," says Bonauto, whose organization filed the 2001 lawsuit that led to gay marriages in Massachusetts. "Non-gay people were able to experience what this looks like. And seeing what it looks like is the one thing that's brought the temperature down. People can see everything's fine."

Still, the state is moving forward on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. The Legislature approved the amendment last year and will take it up again in late August. The state constitution provides that the Legislature must pass it a second time before the measure would go to the voters in November 2006. The outcome is uncertain. Some state lawmakers who supported the amendment have left office.

For couples, some adjustments

Thousands of gay men and lesbians are now living as married couples in Massachusetts. They're filing income taxes together for the first time, becoming used to the words "husband" or "wife," and acquainting themselves with the myriad benefits and obligations that come with marriage.

The privileges became clear to Bob Buckley of Boston last fall, when his husband, Marty Scott, had to go to a hospital emergency room. "When they asked me what was my relationship, I said 'husband.' And I was sent right in, no questions, which was comforting," says Buckley, 45, who will celebrate his wedding anniversary with Scott, 39, on Friday.

"Marriage affects so many things ... from being able to pick your sick child up from school to visiting your dying partner in the hospital emergency room," says Foreman of the gay and lesbian task force. "It's taxes, it's Social Security, it's survivor benefits."

Brodoff and Wade, celebrating their anniversary today, were among the seven couples who filed the lawsuitagainst the state after being denied marriage licenses. "We wanted to have ... access to the protections and benefits and wanted to take on the obligations," says Wade, 56, who lives with Brodoff and their 16-year-old daughter in Newton, a Boston suburb. "We wanted to be part of that institution. ... It's an important civil right, and we should have it."

Brodoff found that while her job at the National Fire Protection Association provided benefits for domestic partners for nearly a decade, some benefits were available only to married couples. For example, if Brodoff died before retiring, a death benefit from her pension would go only to a spouse. "Probably the most important benefit I could hope to have ... is to know that if something were to happen to me, my beloved would be cared for. And that wasn't available to me," Brodoff says. "It shows you how marriage is just a bundle of important protections."

One of the twists that same-sex couples say they have encountered is getting used to calling each other husband or wife. Before their marriage, Brodoff says the term "partner" never seemed appropriate. "But on the other hand, the word 'spouse' or 'wife' is also not completely adequate. ... It's been an opportunity for us to talk about our relationship and what we are to each other." They decided to call each other "spouse."

Erin Golden, on the other hand, has reveled in being able to tell bank officials that the other woman on the deed to her home in North Truro is her wife, Eileen Counihan. Now, Golden says strangers don't even blink when she calls Counihan that. "I think it was freeing and empowering in talking to the world," Golden, 46, says of getting married. She says it has made her more outspoken about her relationship. "At work, I'll say to the guys, 'I have to get home to the wife.' And I never would have done that in the past."

But some aspects of marriage have proved less romantic. This year, for the first time, same-sex couples could file jointly on their state income taxes. But for their federal taxes, they had to file as single or head of household. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue put out a special form to sort through the potential confusion. Bonauto's group held a tax seminar. Couples and accountants spent extra time filling out a "phantom" joint federal return for the sole purpose of calculating their state taxes.

"There was a lot of education we needed to do with our clients," says Lillian Gonzalez of Sandberg, Gonzalez and Creeden, an accounting firm in Stoughton, Mass., which filed taxes for more than 100 same-sex couples. Gonzalez says she offered to put a footnote on her clients' federal returns that they were filing as a married couple in Massachusetts. And Bonauto's group encouraged couples to do the same by stating they were filing as single only because of federal law.

"I don't think any social justice struggle is won or lost in a day," Bonauto says. "And this one won't be."

I fully support that churches should be able to decide what kinds of marriages they perform and recognize. I do not support the idea that socialized federal programs and legal protections are denied to tax-paying hardworking consenting adults of the same sex and their children.

I'm just not able to balance the idea that because so many laws (and legal precedents through case law) exclude same-sex couples from a wide variety of protections because of of all the baggage that comes with the word "marriage".

My preference would be for the federal referendum to change the name of all "marraiges" to "civil unions" with the rights intact and leave "marriage" to the church. However I know that's a pipe dream.

Therefore I think it reasonable to have "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" differ in purpose.

Anyone ever read Ovid's "Art of Love?" It is a wonderful ancient roman treatise on seduction. Because in Rome many many marriages were performed as business arragements i.e. civil unions because such unions were good for society. However it was expected that folks would still seek to find love.

Now - I'm not one to advocate for polyamourous societies or anything like that. However I just can't reconcile the idea that a heterosexual couple has a gazillion more legal protections than a same sex couple.

And Bill - the "gay for the stay" concept isn't (IMO) about being a homosexual. It's about a power dynamic in a very high-pressured and highly pecking-order oriented mini-society. I'm also often baffled by the stereotype of the "predatory gay male" being the single defining image of the entire homosexual community. Folks don't seem to run away screaming in fear from the lesbians, just the gay men. 'Tis odd.[/i]

Folks don't seem to run away screaming in fear from the lesbians, just the gay men.

Hmm...

Assuming that's the case, perhaps it has to do with one or more factors.

1) People confuse being gay with pedophilia. There are gay pedophiles, but then there are heterosexual pedophiles as well. In any case, perhaps a bad experience with a pedophile leaves a lasting mark. My father personally "dealth with" a pedophile priest in a situation where the Catholic Church was "passing the trash." And when he did so, he took the kid gloves off - so to speak. He threatened The Church hierarchy (with legal and public consequences) and got away with it at a time when many Catholics feared repercussions from the upper echelon. Such a situation never should have existed in the first place.

2) You're not a male who's been hit on by gay men, Dana. Unwelcome advances from any source are "annoying" to say the least. It's pretty bad when you can't take a simple dump in a certain bathroom, or shower in a certain gym. And frankly the thought of rampant activity in these venues still gives me the creeps.

I can name the places; there's no BS here.

In any event, it made me appreciate more what women have to put up with from annoying heterosexual males.

What sexual practices may result in pregnancy by exposing an egg to sperm.

What methods reduce the possibility of pregnancy by limiting either the woman's ability to be fertile or limiting the ability of the sperm to reach the egg. The latter falls into three categories - medications, devices and abstinence.

What sexual practices may result in transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STFs -- formerly known as STDs) by exposing one set of bodily fluids to another set of bodily fluids.

What sexual practices do not result in transmission of sexully transmitted infections.

What sexual practices are legal in that state.

That is sex ed.

Curriculum on dating, sexual identification/orientation, partnering, and marriage is a separate class. That's where the can of worms should be. Not around the clinical facts of reproduction and STFs.

What sexual practices may result in transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STFs -- formerly known as STDs) by exposing one set of bodily fluids to another set of bodily fluids.

What sexual practices do not result in transmission of sexully transmitted infections.

Some will argue, Dana, that this is where the slippery slope begins. But then some folks are arguing against teaching evolution and for teaching scientific creationism (an oxymoron if ever there was one...).

When it comes to science and health, I have no problem. Public health comes first, for the good of society as a whole.

Dana wrote:

Curriculum on dating, sexual identification/orientation, partnering, and marriage is a separate class. That's where the can of worms should be.

And IMO government has no business forcing this on people. Option? Sure. Otherwise, leave that to parents/families and their respective cultural/religious ways.

Wow, complicated stuff. To sum up, redbeard, you have opinions that gays are bad for society and marriage and kids, and yet you've cited no nubers or facts to support your view. You've also made some erroneous assumptions and generalizations. And to sum up my reply, when you come out swinging that a group of people is genetically defective / developmentally flawed / destructive to society, its considered polite (where I come from) to substantiate the view. If you want to lay the whole thing on the Bible, fine, that's your opinion, and there are orthodox jews and christian gays who would be happy to debate you in the Uechi Bible Issues Forum. I don't read the Bible and I don't find it relevant here because what was written 2k ago doesn't inform US policy, or shouldn't (ref: US Constitution). Some specifics:

"The gay/lesbian community can be just as hate-filled/militant as those opposed to that way of life."

You're aware then, that there are as many reported antigay killings yearly as there were lynchings at the peak of the civil rights conflict? (either time or newsweek, can't recall, after the S. Shephard murder). You think gay people are causing this much hate crime agaist straights? Doubt it. Never, in fact, heard of any gay on straight hate crimes. I'm sure its happened some time tho.

"The homosexual culture is bad for society."

There IS no single homosexual culture. Trashy anonymous sex IS demonstrably bad for society: Bill can't take a dump without a pass, evidently, and people are getting diseases. But that is not an inherently gay trait. There are trashy people of all orientations. And nonpromiscuous people of all orientations. JUST being gay--how does that harm whom?

"I have left the posibility open for genetic defects."

Do you have any citations, expertise, or readings in this area to make such a remarkable comment? And even if genetic, why a "defect?" A defect is by definition associated with abnormal function. I, however, am unaware of any loss of function or distress caused by my supposed "defect."

What causes homosexuality? I don't think of a "cause" anymore than I wonder what causes introversion or left handedness. They are not conditions. Why do people have different sexual orientations? People come in a range of heights--I happen to be more at one end at 6'3"--and people come in a range of orientations. Probably its the interaction of multiple genes and complex environmental situations that determines how we act. But multiple surveys have some components of bisexuality in many/most adults.

You have not established enough experience or expertise to classify "most cases" as stemming from "developmental disability."

"I get the feeling that you think "my slice of society", as you put it, are a bunch of ignorant, violent villians who are out to get you."

You're assuming my intentions; I am quoting your comments. I think your slice is welcome to whatever views they want just as mine is. I think both are obligated to produce EVIDENCE if they advocate restricting rights and declaring the other diseased. I've done neither to you. The difference here: we disagree, yet only one of us believes in holding the power of the state over the other.

"I don't believe any "special interest groups" should have any special rights in the first place."

Equal rights are not special rights. I don't want a prize for being who I am. I don't want a police escort. I haven't asked for a holiday or favoritism on hiring day. I merely ask to have EQUAL access to forming state recognized unions (religions can certify whatever marriages they chose) and to be free from discrimination except where my "disease" is relevant (the vatican, for example).

Trust me. If you were born on planet gay and someone told you never to have sex or go to jail and pay fines, and never get married or be able to adopt, or have a fair chance at a job, you'd echo that these are indeed EQUAL rights. You don't know how SPECIAL they really are--having taken them for granted.

"Then I have the right to not recognize that union"

Don't. Call it what you want. But you've justified NO state discrimination. And I will retain the right to hold my opinions about various religions, many positive, and continue to support THEIR freedom no matter what they do to mine.

"It is my understanding that marriage from the begining of time has been defined as the union between a man and a women."

The genders have been fairly constant. Not completely, depending on how you read certain works on the Christian tradition of marriage, but generally. HOWEVER, old men have married GIRLS. Or many women. Or owned and raped them. Why do you think that marriage is constant when all that has changed--just because gender didn't? Do you have a substantiated nonBiblical reason to oppose same sex unions?

"The Scriptures are crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin"

Ask the Pope. He cares about behavior, actually. Anyway, please cease making comparisons to raping animals. I've spoken to few people who insist on continuing to make such insulting comparisons in the face of repeated requests.

Here's my world view: Try to leave the world better than how you found it. Golden rule everything. Beneficence. Nonmaleficence. Autonomy. Create and protect things of value, utility, and beauty. Reduce reuse recycle. Karate do--often. Karate jutsu--when forced. Cut the carbs and transfats. That about does it.... tho I'm sure there are some things left off. Biggest thing is not to boss people around unless you have a good reason.

Redbeard
It is you who seem confused by the dates of the new testament. For example Paul was born 100 years after the death of Christ, he never actually met him and Mark is the oldest historical Gospel, the three gospels Mathew Mark and Luke are all believed to either be derived from the same source or alternatively M and L derive from Mark, which is why they are referred to as the "Synoptic" Gospels ....which as I said was written about 300 AD for a Roman market..................as to the Gospels being "Historical Fact" that is absolure nonsence.they contradict many known historical fact. The Romans kept extensive records......for example ...why did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem?...some say for a Census.............but the Romans never conducted a census there The books that I read are all written by Scholars who agree on many points
try "Testament" by John Romer, or The Jesus Debate ( modern historians investigate the life of Christ) by Mark allan Powell.......................there is another book "Jesus" by A.N or A.e Wilson which is excellent ( I'll find the correct name and post it later).............the only Historical source that seems to know anything about Jesus was Flavius Josephus
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htmAs I've said the Bible was heavily edited but it depends on which Bible you read...for example the Ethiopean Bible which was translated in about 400 ad is different from the catholic bible which wasn't translated to English until 1929 .and has two additional books "the book of Jubilees" and "the second book of Enoch"................the New testament was just a collection of random writings by various authors, the 37th Festal letter spelt out what was to be regarded as "Christian" and what was not.and many Gospels were not included in the New testament they are referred to as the "Apocryphal Gospels" and include the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip.many of these old Gospel were destroyed by the early church.......although a few have resurfaced as with the Nag Hamadhi, historians only really know them by the fact that they have been refferred to in other documents.
We use the King James the second Bible in my country.....I know thata lot of Catholics that I know will say that Jesus was an only Child ( I guess it kinda helps with the Immaculate conception idea) .butin the Gospels it clearly states that Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters.......
A lot of the early persecutions by the church where for "Heresy" as opposed to " Blaspemy".heresy means a wrong interpretation of the Bible.........the final Crusade was against the French "Cathars" was by the "Church of Wolves" as the cathars referred to Rome .and this was because the Cathars only used the Gospel of John and believed that the new testament God of Jesus was a different creature than Jahweh or Jehova.............( the God some folks think that you should be in Fear of )

Back at UVA I was first exposed to consequentialism and deontologic ethics. I'm the former, Redbeard is the latter. I believe that something is wrong in the harm that it does:

--a loving relationship between two consenting adults does good, not harm
--deforestation is wrong even if legal
--stealing or lying might not be wrong (what if I lied about where I was taking someone and it was to preserve a surprise party? what if I stole from a killer or drug lord with lots of $$ to give back what he took? etc)
--eating junk food might be wrong because if its the cause of my morbid obesity with diabetes, heart disease, chronic wounds, kidney failure, and so on, then I'm causing a burden to society by being a glutton.

In deontology, there are just rules.

--Lying and stealing are always wrong
--there's a rule against same sex relationships (have to specify whose rules you follow, of course)
--deforestation may be just fine
--junk food may or may not be fine, depending on your system, again, its one of the big 7 sins on some lists.

What's nice about having a rational reason for everything is that no one gets stuck under the boot of someone else's rules. Redbeard would have to give up the power to control others with his rules--but in return he can relax knowing that no one is ever going to force him to submit to a different arbitrary rule system he may disagree with. Such as the Taliban's, etc. Actually, I'd suffer a lot more there for several reasons--the most obvious being that they make beards mandatory.

We know each other, so you know I can give you a hard time or poke at your logic w/o you taking it personally. In this case, I see something in your reasoning that intrigued me. I want to run with it a bit.

Redbeard wrote:

I have left the posibility open for genetic defects.

Ian wrote:

Do you have any citations, expertise, or readings in this area to make such a remarkable comment? And even if genetic, why a "defect?" A defect is by definition associated with abnormal function. I, however, am unaware of any loss of function or distress caused by my supposed "defect."

What causes homosexuality? I don't think of a "cause" anymore than I wonder what causes introversion or left handedness. They are not conditions. Why do people have different sexual orientations? People come in a range of heights--I happen to be more at one end at 6'3"--and people come in a range of orientations. Probably its the interaction of multiple genes and complex environmental situations that determines how we act.

I'm going to avoid labels here, Ian, but I want to work with your line of thinking.

What do you think of the 2 camps of folks who argue about people born deaf? (Or whatever the politically correct term is...) Medical science is offering treatment such as coclear inplants, etc. But some deaf folks protest, claiming it implies their physical state is a "defect." They feel they can live perfectly productive lives. And when it comes to Marlee Matlin, I have to agree.

But still...

What would be wrong with going to an orthodontist to get your teeth straighter? Does that imply a "defect" or not?

What would be wrong with going to a dermatologist or plastic surgeon to change a physical feature? Does that impy a "defect" or not?

What's wrong with making an erection last longer? Heck...I played with that drug decades ago in the dog lab (on dog hearts) before anyone ever thought to use it on "the other" love muscle... Never thought at the time that anyone would ever want a medication that bad. If only I had known, I would have bought a LOT of Pfizer stock. In any case, is there a "defect" implied when grandpa wants to give granny a little more pleasure?

What are you going to do to have a child? Haven't you ever thought about procreation where the offspring is a genetic mix of you and your partner? Tricky, isn't it? Modern technology eventually can make some things happen indirectly, more or less. In any case, this requires a type of medical intervention, no?

What would the average GLB individual do - not committed to another - if someone said the following... "We now have this medication which will change your sexual orientation from A to B." How would it be viewed in the medical community? How do you think it would be viewed and used in the GLB community? Do you think insurance companies ever would pay? (Insurance contractually pays when there is medical necessity, and that can only be if there is a defined medical condition in the first place.)

Just poking at that smart brain of yours, Ian.

Feel free to chime in, others. No need for Ian to take on all these questions by himself.

I suspected hearing might be mentioned here. People born deaf generally never miss the sense and don't think there's anything wrong with them. This comes down to a matter of opinion basically. But there is a good argument for calling this a problem, albeit one that is minor. Two, actually:

--people who have then lose hearing generally view it--well, as a loss.
--there is a demonstrable ability present in the majority (the hearing), and absent in the minority (the deaf). Doesn't make em bad, but when the standard model comes with AC and your car's breaks or it never got installed--well, that's a defect.

In the case of homosexuality, the only demonstrable "loss" of function would be the inability to have romantic relationships with people of the opposite sex. But:

--there is an equal an opposite GAIN of function in that romantic relationships are substituted. This is variation, not loss.
--plus, there are many "gay" people that actually can have relationships with either. They're labeled gay because they're different, but bisexual might be the best. This is excpanded range, not loss.

Besides, its hard to classify people into gay and straight anyway. People differ in attitudes and behaviors and no single rule sums sexuality up. Classifying homosexuality differently results in the widely varying estimates of prevalence, for example. A better comparison would be not to deafness but between gay-straight and low-frequency vs high frequency hearing.

Would that drug be used? Sure! There are a lot of gay people who have a lot of lingering or overt discomfort with who they are. MOST, in my anecdotal but broad experience, attempt to change to fit the majority standard. And most of them realize there's nothing wrong with them, although scars may remain. But surely some never get over it or would use the drug when they were initially struggling.

Why? You have to recall just how hard adolescence is for anyone. When you take a time of competition, cruel social games, learning to be independent, raging hormones, high hopes, sometimes big disapointments, and rapid learning, at a vulnerable age, AND you have to listen to people like redbeard running around calling you a diseased, defective sinner with a developmental disability, well, the tween years are plain awful.

Interesting story similar to the drug idea. My mom once told me she was sad about who i was because she figured life would be harder for me. She said if she had a magic wand she'd make me straight. My response? It was a lot of those hardships that made me the hardworking, decisive, resilient person I am. And besides--if she had a magic wand she could point it at the problem, anyway, which is an unwelcoming society.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum